81 comments:

CL I've never said this to you before, but I'm very, very happy you've left Islam. I'm so impressed with how you respond to muslims who try to beat you and berate you when they post on your videos. God has definately annointed you and blessed you to bless those people. It gives those like me a model to follow next to the bible. Good Job. Deleting....aka Anglicannew.

I am happy I left Islam also I don't have to recite surah al fatiha over and over and over again like a android.. " And in your prayer do not make use of the same words again and again, as the Gentiles do: for they have the idea that God will give attention to them because of the number of their words. Matt 6:7"

I'm kind of bothered by a lot of the Quranic criticism on the website lately.

The Bible describes a stationary flat earth with a sun that moves around it, it promotes arranged marriages and teen marriages, it commanded the Jews to annihilate some entire cities, and in others to kill everyone but the young ladies, which they were allowed to marry after they had mourned for a month. The Bible advocates stoning as the penalty for adultery, and also for collecting sticks on the Sabbath, and commands women to cover their hair.

I guess I don't understand. If the Quran is to be rejected for these reasons, and can't be reconciled to the modern world, then how does the Bible withstand the same criticism?

It just doesn't seem consistent.

Why can I say that Moses was a true prophet who spoke to God face to face, and that all that stoning and flat earth-ism is wrong, but Muslims can't say likewise?

I understand the point of the anachronistic Quranic miracle arguments, showing that we can't keep the "miracles" and reject the blunders, but really a lot of this sounds like atheists trumping out Gallileo and Jericho. These arguments sound like the arguments atheists use to disprove the Bible and Christianity, just replacing terms.

If a Muslim should be compelled by the description of an orbiting sun to reject Islam, then why should they then pick up our book, which describes an orbiting sun?

I guess my beef is that the Gospel is not clear in many of these criticisms, and that it seems we are shooting ourselves in the foot. The conclusion to a video about rejecting false astronomical claims is not to accept Christ as Savior, but to accept verified astronomical claims.

I'm not trying to defend Islam - it is false for many other reasons besides. At the least I'd just like a thought-out explanation of how this is useful in proclaiming the Gospel, as opposed to proclaiming modern secularism.

John,Where did you read the bible is flat? If I recall Isaiah says' He sit's enthroned above the circle of the earth'. Job elaborates on this further. I'd have to find the references for both but I think there's a larger issue here.... It sounds like you're taking quranic arguments and applying them to the bible. There is context for both books that need to be applied. Beyond this it sounds like your applying islamic logic to the bible but your not citing any references that allow us to examine the verses hermaneutically. Also, this website has always had Quranic critism. Why are you just noticing it now?

There's simply no comparison here. (1) Muslims in the West appeal to science as the main proof of Islam. Hence, they make scientific accuracy their primary criterion of a true religion, thus opening the door for all kinds of criticism. Christians rarely appeal to science as their main argument, so we're not in the same boat. (2) The Qur'an claims to be perfectly clear, and therefore rules out reinterpretation of clear passages. The Bible doesn't make this claim. (3) The Qur'an claims to be the perfect word of Allah, preserved on a tablet for all eternity. Thus, it makes no sense to claim that it was revealed according to the scientific understanding of its time. Christians have a different view of inspiration. (4) Muhammad is considered the greatest interpreter of the Qur'an, and he often commented on these verses. Muslims are not allowed to reinterpret verses when Muhammad has given them his interpretation. Christians don't face this problem. (5) Concerning the moral issues, Muslims are commanded to carry out these practices. Christians aren't commanded to carry out OT punishments.

In regards to Scripture claiming geocentrism, I guess the main one would be Joshua 10http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=joshua%2010&version=NIV1984

This is actually the main passage that was used in argument against Gallileo. But there are plenty of others, like in Genesis 1 and all over the Psalms, and even in Revelation, that use flat-earth language and terms.

The context in this passage is, Joshua was leading the Israelites in to the promised land, killing all of the inhabitants already there, and during one particular battle God revealed his favor for them by hurling hail and stopping the sun in the sky. Joshua then goes on to destroy entire cities, leaving no survivors, not sparing women or children as commanded by God.

Now, I understand the differences in the books and in the situations, but if your biggest objection to the Quran is all the murder and rape and scientific inaccuracies... then why are we not listening to the secularists who make the exact same claims about the Bible?

For instance, David speaks of the "moral errors" in the Quran, like being able to rape female captives, but unless you're willing to believe that a woman who has had her entire family and village destroyed is consenting to her captors, then there's that same problem in Joshua.

Deleting, I've been following the blog for a few years. I rarely ever read the comment sections anymore, but I started following the blog for David's wonderful logical analysis of the problems in Islam (like Muhammad referring to the Bible, which denies him - if the Bible's true, Muhammad's a false prophet, but if the Bible isn't true then Muhammad is still a false prophet; brilliant!). I haven't had time to read anything in a while, so I am speaking of stuff in maybe the past month or so?

If there is a good reason for why the Bible is compatible with Western values and science, perhaps those should be presented alongside the explanation of why the Quran is not? I'm sure there is such a reason, I guess I'd just like to hear more of it. What I hear instead sounds exactly like something my atheist friends will tell me of the Bible, just with different referents.

And of course, Christians are called to a morality completely unlike what God called Joshua to do - to love everyone, to be at peace with everyone, to pray for everyone and give to everyone, even our enemies and those who hate us. If the objection to Islam was just that Muslims are commanded to this day to enact Joshua-style slaughter, then I could understand, but it seems more and more the objection is that Muhammad was not a true prophet because he commanded this at all. Do we then toss out Moses? Toss out Joshua and Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel and Kings and Chronicles?

And yes, I understand that Muslims appeal to "miracles" so it is fair to show the errors, but in regards to David's recent video on the setting sun, he says that good Muslims should reject science and cling to what it says in the Quran because it is what Allah revealed - but the Flat-Earth Society does exactly this for Christians. "God says the earth is flat, that's what we believe, how dare you question it." He says that believing what the Quran says calls you to believe in absurdity, and if I recall has several clips of people laughing at the silly idea of a flat earth circled by the sun spliced in.

All I'm saying is, this isn't really about Islam (which is a false religion) but that it seems like some of these criticisms are inadvertently denying what we all profess to believe. I guess clarification would be nice.

The fatwa is not from Bin baz its from Uthaymeen, he just quotes Bin Baz towards the end..show and prove that not just Bin Baz, but Uthaymeen and since Bin Baz was the president of the Saudi counsel of senor scholars, the Saudi religious establishment as a whole have changed their minds on this issue. The list of ayat was done by a talib ul ilm, if you read the article you should seen that.. so if the contents of the article are ignorant then your ulamah are the ones who are ignorant.

And what do you know about salafiyyah? A muslimah who was following the women of the salaf would have some hayah and not be arguing with men on the internet, you are just another revert joking around..you'll be apostate in a yers like 75% of reverts.

Cut the junk.. me and you both know the reason why you keep coming back to this website, how long will you keep masquerading? A common Muslim who has firm eman wouldn't be here everyday, you would be learning tajweed or something else.. you know you have doubts stop playing around and be real with yourself.

I still can't understand how you're missing this. Let's go through the basics. Compare the following situations:

(1) A Christian preaches the Gospel to me. I ask what evidence there is for Christianity. I investigate the evidence and find that Jesus rose from the dead. Since I don't believe God would raise a heretic from the dead, I conclude that Jesus' message has God's stamp of approval. Hence, I believe in Christianity. What about Old Testament violence, or teachings that people don't like, etc.? Well, since Jesus rose from the dead, I still have to submit to him, whether people like the Bible or not.

(2) A Muslim preaches Islam to me. I ask what evidence there is for Islam. He replies, "The amazing scientific accuracy of Qur'an, combined with impeccable moral qualities of Muhammad, prove that Islam is true!" So I examine the Qur'an, and find it riddled with errors. Then I examine Muhammad's life, and I find him raping women, robbing people, having sex with a little girl, etc. I conclude, "Well, if this is supposed to be the evidence for Islam, I just don't see it."

Are you really missing the difference between someone like Moses and someone like Muhammad? Moses parted the Red Sea and performed many other miracles. Muhammad couldn't do anything miraculous. Hence, if I don't like Moses, that's just tough, because he has God's stamp of approval. If I don't like Muhammad, I'm quite safe, because every shred of evidence I can find goes against him.

That's where I am. Why do I believe the OT? Because Jesus says to, and He rose from the dead. He is very clearly confirmed by God, and I do not get to argue with God. And I love Him. So, I have to spend time out of my life responding to skeptics who disapprove of the things that God has done in the past in establishing Israel. Lot's of Christians lately do, these passages in particular.

And I agree - if a Muslim asks you to behold the scientific profundity of the Quran, showing them that it teaches a flat earth is a valid response. If a Muslim asks you to behold the amazing moral clarity and respect for women and love of peace, pointing out the violence and blood shed and sexualization is a fair response.

For those reasons and many others, I have little interest in ever believing a word of anything Muhammad had to say.

What I was objecting to was that lately, I am getting the impression that these things aren't being brought up by way of rejecting Islamic dawah efforts, but rejected in and of themselves as ridiculous and offensive. The sun setting in a spring is ridiculous, but the Quran teaches it, so you should stop believing in the Quran. Having sex with female captives after you slaughtered their entire village is barbaric and the Quran teaches this, and so you should reject Islam.

The cart seems to be at least trotting alongside the horse, at any rate, especially when these videos and articles are directed at Muslims, not as a response to dawah but as a challenge to their faith.

Why should the Muslim stop being Muslim? Because of the gross immorality and scientific inaccuracy.

That's what atheists tell me about following Christ.

From what you've said, the real reason the Muslim should stop being a Muslim is because there is no reason to be a Muslim in the first place and there is a reason to be a Christian. The Muslim should see that any claim made of Muhammad and the Quran as enlightened is false, whereas Christians can base their claims on the Resurrection of Christ, which signifies Him as Lord.

If that's what you intend, then I agree! I want that message to go out, that Muhammad is a false prophet and Jesus Christ is risen and I applaud you for standing up for it in the face of politically correct blathering. I was merely trying to point out, that the language and content you post seems to be more and more becoming like that first method - reject the Quran because of this atrocity and this ridiculous blunder - as opposed to the latter, and that first method is the exact one that atheists use to deny Jesus.

Just for instance, when you claim that Muhammad's violence constitutes a moral error in the Quran, what do you mean by a "moral error"? Do you mean that it is wrong for Allah to command Muslims to kill certain people? Because that's what it sounds like you say, which would now put Jesus on the hook. Jesus believed and read and affirmed the Law, wherein God among other things tells the Jews to kill certain people.

So maybe instead of "moral error" you should say something else? Because it sounds like you are saying that Allah is a false god because the true God would never command such a thing. But the true God *did* command a very similar thing. If you are telling me not to believe in Allah because of the massacre of the Qurayza, atheists tell me not to believe in Jesus because of the massacre of Jericho.

That's all I'm getting at. I'm not trying to defend Islam or its prophet in any way, I'm merely trying to address what I see as an inconsistency, for the sake of making the Gospel more clear and the sake of not unintentionally placing stumbling blocks in the path to Jesus.

John, I assume that the geocentric argument came from Joshua 10:12-13, with the Sun "standing still" over the Earth.

Now, while with the knowledge of Heliocentrism it would be absurd to believe that the sun rotates around the earth, when considering things from the earth's frame of reference, it is the Sun moving and not the earth.

And from a frame of reference outside the universe (hypothetically speaking of course) since the universe is expanding, both the Earth and the Sun would be moving. Which frame of reference is correct?

When you look up in the sky, you see the sun "moving" because from the Earth's frame of reference, the Earth is stationary. Hence, in order for the sun to stay still from the Earth's frame of reference, you would have to make the Earth stay still from the Sun's frame of reference.

Of course the Earth would still be moving because the Sun moves due to the universes' expansion, but the motion of the Earth and Sun would be the same, making it appear that the Sun is still.

This is getting old and time consuming. You need to think about your objections more carefully, because they're totally misplaced.

The Qur'an lays down a challenge. It says that if the Qur'an isn't from Allah, we will find errors in it. That's an invitation to refute belief that the Qur'an is the word of Allah. Your response seems to be: "No, don't refute the Qur'an by pointing out errors and meeting the challenge, because then we might have to [GASP!] defend the Bible! And we can't defend the Bible! So let's not bring up these errors." Horrendous!

You seem to think that the only place for bringing out such issues is in response to an argument being offered at a particular time and place. This isn't what I meant at all. Muslims have been taught all their lives that the Qur'an is error-free and that Muhammad is the ultimate moral example, and they're taught to base their belief on these "facts." The argument is already in their brains, justifying their false beliefs, whether they present the argument or not. Until various problems have been pointed out in the Qur'an, they'll never even begin to wonder whether there is evidence for Islam.

It seems that you don't think there can be any such thing as moral errors in a supposed revelation. That's just plain silly. If Muhammad had commanded his followers to torture old ladies for fun, would you say it's wrong to call this teaching a moral error? That's just sick.

You say the "moral error" I referred to in my video was "Muhammad's violence," and that this shows my inconsistency, because there's violence in the Bible. Sheer misrepresentation! I referred to "having sex with prepubescent girls, beating women into submission," and "violently subjugating non-Muslims" as moral errors. Show me where the Bible commands any of these, and you can feel free to accuse me of inconsistency. Do you really not see a difference between (a) commanding violence in certain situations (which does occur in the Bible), and (b) calling for the violent subjugation of everyone who doesn't recite the Shahadah? Are you seriously claiming that Jesus approves of a Biblical version of (b)??? Chapter and verse, please.

So, contrary to your distortion, I never said anything remotely resembling, "Reject the Qur'an because there's violence in it!" Never happened. The Qur'an commands Muslims to fight and subjugate everyone who doesn't agree with them on every major issue. I call that a moral error.

The only way you could find an inconsistency here would be if you claim: "David, you can't claim that there are moral errors in the Qur'an, since there are things that people might object to in the Bible." But this is just silly. People are free to raise objections about the Bible, and Christians either can or can't respond successfully. This has nothing to do with whether it's wrong for Muslims to beat their wives or rape little girls, and we would be cowards if we avoided these issues out of fear that we would have to defend the Bible on other issues.

Correct. Your argument is tacitly affirming that the Bible does indeed state that the sun stopped moving in the sky, and you are trying to explain how this is a reasonable sort of description to use.

Good. I agree. It is perfectly reasonable to describe the sun as rising and setting in a geocentric framework. As you address, the only sense in which the earth "really" orbits the sun is that the equations of motion for the earth-sun system is expressed most symply in coordinates that treat a particle approximately the size of the earth orbiting about the earth-sun center of mass, which is located inside the radius of the sun. But all of the physics or the earth-sun system can certiainly be expressed in terms of coordinates that treat the earth as a fixded center, just grossly more complicated. One of the main principles of physics is coordinate invariance, so insisting on one set of coordinates as "true" is just a matter of taste. We could declare the fixed center of the universe to be a moon of Jupiter, and the equations would be ridiculously messy, but they'd be just as right.

All to say, I have no qualms with ancient texts or modern texts describing a sun that moves around the earth. It is not absurd to describe such a system, so why are we trying to point that it is absurd for the Quran to describe such a system? And in stressing that it is absurd for a book to claim so, are we not implicitly calling the Bible absurd?

I think the main difference between the Bibles notions of the Sun's movement and the Quran is that the Bible doesn't ever actually imply that the sun goes around the Earth.

The words can be interpreted as such, but then when we combine our understanding of the motions of the Earth with what the Bible says, we find no disagreement or contradiction.

Compare this to the Quran, however, where actual concrete statements are made about the relationship between the Earth and the Sun that is harder to deny. It's not as easy to say "It can be interpreted this way, but when we combine what we observe with what the Quran says, we find no contradiction" because we DO find contradiction.

That's a test the Bible consistently passes and the Quran doesn't. You can hold up the Bible to reality and what we observe and find no true contradiction as opposed to the Quran.

A few other things, the Bible doesn't actually indicate a flat earth however I'm sure it's probably another case of "Could be interpreted that way..." but usually references to such things are in figurative language such as "pillars of the earth" or "four corners of the earth" Pillars could refer to the physical laws that uphold the universe and govern the planets motions. Four corners is generally a reference to the entire globe.

The Bible doesn't actually "promote" arranged marriages.

It's common for people to assume that anything included in scripture means scriptures is promoting or approving it. The Bible is a book of many genres and history is a big one. The Bible tells us that people had arranged, teen and even polygamous marriages. It doesn't "promote" such.

Indeed Israel was commanded to wipe out people, but they were God's instrument of judgement and judgement also came back on them! Similarly with the Babylonians who were used as an instrument of judgement against Israel, only for them to be judged right back. Is it wrong for God to do this?

A major difference to all of these things and Islam is that Islam actually does promote them for the Muslims of today! The Bible does not. The Bible shows us the way God revealed Himself and His Will over history and under different covenants. The Quran does not.

I think I read somewhere that the four corners of the earth referred to the four cardinal points.

Also, there was an interesting analysis I found of Job which equated the "pillars" to the mountains, based on context:-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Pillars of heaven

In the book of Job, Job is talking to his four "friends," and eventually to God Himself. During one of these long discourses, Job talks about God's creation, referring to the "pillars of the heavens." Skeptics say that the pillars hold up the solid dome firmament above the earth. However, before deciding exactly what these "pillars of the heavens" are, we should look at the verse in context:

He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. (Job 26:7)He wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight. (Job 26:8)He covers the face of the full moon, spreading his clouds over it. (Job 26:9)He marks out the horizon on the face of the waters for a boundary between light and darkness. (Job 26:10)The pillars of the heavens quake, aghast at his rebuke. (Job 26:11)As one can see, Job comes up with some rather remarkable insights into the nature of the earth. He says that the earth is suspended over nothing and that the clouds carry water and have weight, yet do not fall to earth. In the context of the passage, it is clear that the "pillars" are the mountains, which quake at God's rebuke. Whereas the Quran says the earth is like a carpet that is held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs, so that it won't move or shake, the Bible associates the mountains with shaking and says that, instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up. So, it is pretty obvious that these pillars aren't holding anything up, but are merely free-standing pillars, similar to those found in Solomon's Temple.

I probably understand John the most out of anyone reading here, as I finally caved into John's objections and refused to acknowledge double standards and inconsistency any longer three long years ago.

John the real problem is how Mcstizzle phrased it: "Is it wrong for God to do this?"

Expanding the question..."Is it wrong for God to do ANYTHING?" and

"Is God limited to any rules/regulations or laws?"

Most Christians including David would say God is constrained to his loving nature. If that's the case then "torturing babies for fun will always be an ABSOLUTE NO NO" due to the absolute loving and good nature of God. Well that's what David WANTS to affirm anyway.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Why? Simply because "God's omni benevolent and loving nature" are not synonymous with how us contemporary humans judge ethics and standards. So in God's loving nature, things like genocide, infanticide, murder, stonning are perfectly loving and moral atleast in some circumstances. So the "all loving nature of God" doesn't really solve anything. As it's an "unknowable mysterious loving nature", that can permit things we view as evil. You can't solve this dilemma unless God has OUR nature and understandings how our hardware is wired to reject baby torture. God is not wired like us, the ontological differences make it impossible for God to be "all loving , all good" by human standards of love and goodness, but only Gods bizarre unknown standards of love and goodness that defy all reason "e.g. stoning as a form of human capital punishment" is absolute good and love derived from the amazing absolute goodness of God. In simple human nature, stoning is unnecessary torture, and a cruel, harmful source of evil.

David even indirectly brings up the problem by conceding he has no problem with A) God killing and using violence in certain times in certain situations with people and B) God commands everyone to die or be subjugated until they believe.

Unlike you John, David says one is okay(a), and B is unacceptable.

But on what grounds can David say this?

David cannot say this on any legitimate grounds. Because if Islam is true, then to kill and subjugate everyone who refuses Islam is a perfectly moral action.

John the ultimate problem is each has a different God. And by offering the Muslims a different God, in this case Yahweh who has temporarily paused the "human" killing instructions (note he still kills everyone through things like calamity/predestination, cause and effect etc) only to bring it back ten fold at the apocalypse.

John I know you are scared of secularists and atheists, and it's obvious why. You have pointed out the very reasons yourself, that if Islam cannot be true for these reasons, then Christianity cannot be true for the same reasons. At least a FUNDAMENTALIST view of Christianity that declares the Bible is inerrant, infallible, inspired, that God is the source of all good , the bible is scientifically accurate etc, we both know this CANNOT be true.

John ultimately understands the flawed and imperfect defenses of the Divine Command Theory, because morals don't derive from commands but from HARDWIRED nature, what we are "designed" to hate and love is is already in us, we hate pain, we love pleasure, we don't have a choice.

John understands to criticize Islam for moral errors is to reject fundamentalist Christianity as well.

John don't be afraid to join us more honest seekers. This obviously isn't a path you are comfortable with.

David is even calling you out. Which is great. David says "Oh so we can't criticize Islam because the Bible has the same problems? NONSENSE! We must face up to this". A great great attitude, and John you and I both know David's contemporary version of DCT is insufficient, so that's why you won't go that route, you will have to maintain your inconsistent belief in DCT and hence your defense of Islam if you want to remain a fundamentalist Christian.

Hah, Edwards Im not like you. I only come here to post correct information about ny religion that some people love to twist their own incorrect interpretations to. I dont argue endlessly on here, which is why i dont respond to questions to me that have obvious answers. Plus Ive given accurate websites but i doubt most people here even visit them. I will God willing never become a Christian or apostate. If for some reason I ever rehect Islam Id still be a God believer with extremely similar beliefs Islam has given me. The best!

"Well the proof is in the pudding, since Moses literally parted the red sea, and Jesus literally raised from the dead, God clearly gives them his stamp of approval as God couldn't be a deceiver, so there may not be things we like in the Bible, but these men actual has miraculous proof, so we may not like every commandment in the bible, but we know it's true, so we have to go along with it"

First of all the Exodus has no evidence. Not any part of it.

Second the resurrection hypothesisfails, since it's only said to be by it's advocates the "BEST EXPLANATION of the facts". Meaning all the other explanations are inadequate therefore magic is the best answer. However no historian/scholar says better explanations may not appear in the future. So it's not evidence, it's AN explanation for the rising of Christianity, an empirically unsupported explanation. How do we confirm any of the claims of the explanation? Are some of the conditions/circumstances offered even possible? Impossible to even confirm!

4) David assumes God is not a deceiver. That God could not deceive certain groups of people into tricking people into thinking Jesus was his Son by raising him from the dead.

5) That even if these events happened and God approved of these men and God is truthful, and what they describe about God is accurate, we could still resist God, JUST LIKE supposedly Satan has done, since there are still evils we don't like about this being.

6) God or some being could have raised Jesus from the dead and vindicated him, but that doesn't mean we know anything about the LIFE of Jesus. The 8 fundamental facts about Jesus life that many scholars agree upon do not include Jesus thinking of himself as God. So we don't know exactly why God is vindicating Jesus, we don't know much about what Jesus said. We have an idea, not verbatim information.

Now given the circumstances that Islam is true, many Christians may choose to resist Allah, since such a being is unworthy of worship. Likewise simply because a religion is true, nonetheless David, does not mean the moral framework provided is acceptable to us.

So all and all David's solution is junk. Say Islam had actual proof, does that mean that Allah would be any more moral, nah.

So say the resurrection and exodus could be proven, does that give us a good cause to follow a being advocating genocide but who has a few "strange" miracles along the way and after the way. He could be using these miracles for whatever purpose he wants.

Ultimately John is right, supernatural vindication doesn't show one religion is more moral or another is less. Bottom line, non-sequitor David.

On speaking to numerous atheists on the moral character of the God of the Bible most atheists think it's the same Muslim god. The objections to God's judgment on certain peoples is brushed aside because it suits atheists to hold to their worldview.

Atheists are not interested in the context, time, culture, situation, etc. All of this matters nothing to them and most Muslims also.

@ John Lollard: My friend you accuse David of bringing up similar objections towards Islam as Atheists bring towards Christianity. But I think it is you who act like most atheist and secularist people do, which is as soon as anybody criticizes the Quran immediately the answer comes that: "But there are similar verses in the Bible!"

I am baffled that a Christian who actually has read the Bible (unlike most in the secular public and media) and understands Christian doctrine about the Bible would say the same inaccurate stuff that the secularists and atheists do!

Bible has NOTHING in common with Quran! First of all we Christians NEVER claimed the same silly outlandish claims that Muslims make about The Quran, that it is 100% un alterable verbatim words of the almighty written on heavenly tablets and that it is a paragon of scientific accuracy and even miracles of science!

We don't claim that Bible is completely pure of any human influence. We don't claim that the Bible is a miracle of Judaism or Christianity, but Muslims make such a claim and not only that, The Quran is supposed to be the ONLY miracle of Islam, both at the time of Muhammed and for posterity.

Since we never make such outlandish claims about our book we don't have to hold our book to such unattainably high standards as the Quran can fairly be held up to. And if Quran fails it even once, then it is finished! It will be out the window since itself rose the bar so high on itself.

The more outlandish the claims the higher the bar and that is what Muslims brought upon themselves! If they claim that Quran is full of Miracles of science then if we see that it actually is full of errors that is grounds for throwing it out of the court!

But we Christians NEVER claimed that our book is a book of science! I actually get pretty upset when some Christians act as if it should be. We also never claimed that our book is the verbatim word of God. It is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it is written by human beings which were not omniscient and only were men of their own times. So of course since the point of the revelation was not to teach us science but spiritual truths and morality and knowledge of God and His Plan for humanity then there was no reason for these men to know about the functions of heavenly bodies and subatomic structures and heliocentricity and things like that.

We live in an age when scientism prevails and we think that the purpose of any text worth its salt is to reveal to us about the scientific facts of this world and we think no other kind of knowledge is wroth our time. But even until 100 to 150 years ago that was not at all the view of most people.

Bible was not meant to be a science manual. God wants us to do our own scientific discoveries! What he wanted to reveal to us through scriptures was totally different stuff.

But Muslims also in the recent 100 year have been infected by scientism and that is where their silly view that their book is a miracle of science comes from. They want to pretend that they are so up-to-date and modern and their book is so advanced. In the past, even very recent past no Muslim scholar ever claimed that Quran contained scientific miracles. Muhammed and Quran itself most certainly never made such a claim. Quran only claims that it is a literary miracle which nobody can bring a sura like it, and we all know how lousy that argument is.

But now I come to moral arguments. I think you really are off the mark here, The Bible NEVER sanctions the kind of barbarity that Quran commands (not just sanctions). The incident in Jericho and the command to purify the land was a one time event designed to bring judgement on a people whose religion was prostitution and child sacrifice, and it is really clear from EVERYTHING in the text.

It is no accident that neither Christians nor Jews even in the more barbaric ages of the past ever rallied their troops by pointing to those verses.

Some secularist act as if the Christians and Jew arbitrarily because of the goodness of their heart kind of ignore those violent verses or "reinterpret" them peacefully. NOT SO! We never had to"reinterpret" them since those verses are crystal clear! They don't command us to commit violence today and so we without any "reinterpretation" don't need to commit any violence!

God wanted Israel to kick out the Canaanites off the land and if they resisted slaughter was commanded. And that was that! the issue ended and God never issued such a command again and on the contrary gave many highly moral commandments towards strangers and people who are not part of the Israel. The Jews were supposed to be very kind and caring towards them. They were banned from robbing or enslaving them but were commanded to help them.

Rape is totally BANNED towards anyone in all of the Bible! Murder as well. Slavery as well! How does that resemble the Quran which casually allows all these things??!! The fact that we even feel uncomfortable reading those violent verses in the Bible is because the rest of the Bible istelf has been teaching us constantly that killing and harming people is wrong!

Just look at the Muslims to understand this. Their book commands them to commit all kinds of atrocities on a regular basis and they never even bat and eye and wonder how could their moral God allow such immoral acts. They just take it as the gold standard because their book provides them with no other restriction on such immoral acts.

The only reason that Muslims today have started to even try to"reinterpret" those passages is because they have come to the west and have been influenced by the Biblical world view and started to see the ugliness of these verse and are trying to find a way out without denouncing Islam wholesale. Otherwise for 14 centuries they had no problem with them at all!

Only semiliterate secularists who never studied the Bible and maybe once or twice just browsed through its passages for the purpose of finding faults would ever make such a shallow claim that e have similar problems in the Bible. We most definitely don't!

By the way all those semiliterate secularists when it comes to the New Testament hardly can find ANYTHING negative to say. They pick on Paul sometimes but even they cannot find a slightest fault with Jesus! So they all admire him as a person even though don't accept his message.

But Muhammed is totally another story. And since Muslims peddle this bizarre doctrine of Ismaa (sinlessness) of Muhammed and consider him to be absolutely perfect then finding a slightest fault with him will collapse their whole argument.

However we Christians who don't have such a silly doctrine about our prophets would not deny that some of them committed even grave sins. They were only human! So a Muslim cannot point at David or Salomon and say "They committed sins and you consider them to be true prophets. Why do you pick on our prophet Muhammed?"

So I think your whole comparison is false and sounds more like the complaints that secularists make when we point out the flaws of Islam. Just as they do you immediately tried to draw a moral equivalency between The Bible and The Quran which doesn't exist at all. I wouldn't expect this kind of reasoning from a Christian!

Hi John Lollard... according to Joshua: is the passage in question, according to the words poresent in context, portraiting a cientific element -- the sun stoped -- or an psychological one -- the battle seamed to last an eternity as iff time stod still--? please: read the text in its context..

DK said: "Second the resurrection hypothesisfails, since it's only said to be by it's advocates the "BEST EXPLANATION of the facts". Meaning all the other explanations are inadequate therefore magic is the best answer. However no historian/scholar says better explanations may not appear in the future. So it's not evidence."

Wow. You have no clue how "evidence" works at all. That explains a lot about your claims and arguments. Let me see if I've got this straight.

(1) Defenders of the resurrection only claim that it is the best explanation of the facts.(2) No one can rule out an as yet unknown alternative explanation, which may explain the facts equally well or better.(3) Therefore, there's no evidence for the resurrection, and the resurrection isn't evidence of anything.

Shockingly bad! Your reasoning wouldn't just rule out complex hypotheses such as Einsteinian relativity and Quantum mechanics, but also the most basic scientific inferences based on experiments in the laboratory. Your reasoning would rule out all historical claims, and virtually all claims to knowledge!

Why? Because scientists, historians, etc. ALWAYS try to go with the best explanation, even if other hypotheses are possible or unknown. Let me give you a simple example.

(1) I look in front of me right now, and I see a laptop. I feel the laptop with my fingers as I type, and I hear the stroking of the keys.(2) I conclude that there really is a laptop in front of me, because that is the best explanation of the facts.

Are there other possible explanations? Of course there are. I could be dreaming right now. I could simply be a "brain in a vat"--an experiment of some mad scientist who is sending my brain electrical impulses to make me think that I'm typing right now.

According to you, then, since "there is a laptop in front of me" is merely the best explanation of the facts, and since another explanation might come along later, there's no evidence whatsoever that there is a laptop in front of me!

Your reasoning, my friend, isn't a threat to Christianity. It's a threat to knowledge of anything! Most people, however, aren't willing to sink to such depths to justify their rejection of Christianity.

DK said: "First of all the Exodus has no evidence. Not any part of it."

Nonsense. Jesus rose from the dead, and he affirmed it. If I'm going to listen to someone tell me about what happened to Moses, I'm going to listen to the one who rose from the dead.

Of course, you reject the resurrection, because you don't understand basic epistemology. But that's irrelevant to the discussion. The question, if you recall, went something like this: "David, how can you say that moral issues are a problem for Islam, but not for Christianity." And my response goes something like this: "If I see a problem in Christianity, I have evidence to outweigh the problems. If I see a problem in Islam, I have nothing to outweigh the problems, because it's problems all the way down."

DK said: "3) Davids comments assumes "God" is the force behind the resurrection (completely unknowable claim) 4) David assumes God is not a deceiver. That God could not deceive certain groups of people into tricking people into thinking Jesus was his Son by raising him from the dead."

Ha! Ha! In order to get around the evidence, DK now has to bring in an "omnipotent deceiver." I could respond that since God is perfect, and the ultimate ground of the moral law, he can't be a deceiver. But I won't even go there.

Instead, I'll simply point out that DK's claim is, once again, fatal to knowledge, not to Christianity. Apart from some "Cartesian" facts (e.g. "I think, therefore I am"), we could never know anything if we agree with DK. Why? Because for any explanation or hypotheses, I could always say, "Maybe an all-powerful deceiver is tricking me." In other words, if a scientist performs an experiment, and the experiment confirms a hypothesis, it's possible that DK's omnipotent trickster is playing a joke on the scientist. Indeed, such a powerful deceiver could trick me every time I add two plus three! He could be tricking me into believing that the answer is five, when it may really be six!

Of course, DK would never allow such a silly hypothesis into his reasoning in any other situation. It's only when we talk about God that DK resorts to such claims.

DK said: "God or some being could have raised Jesus from the dead and vindicated him, but that doesn't mean we know anything about the LIFE of Jesus. The 8 fundamental facts about Jesus life that many scholars agree upon do not include Jesus thinking of himself as God."

Horrendous reasoning, once again. (But should I expect anything else?)

If God raised Jesus from the dead, it would obviously be for some important reason, given it's such a rare occurrence. What would the reason be? To confirm his message. If God raised Jesus from the dead in order to confirm his message, wouldn't God make sure that the message is preserved?

But that's beside the point, since the real problem is, once again, DK's silly methodology. His reasoning runs as follows:

(1) Not all scholars agree on what Jesus thought about himself.(2) Hence, we have no reason to believe that Jesus thought of himself as God.

I can't believe I'm even responding to such nonsense. Let me apply this reasoning in a different way.

(1) Not all scholars agree that there's evidence against God's existence.(2) Hence, we have no reason to believe that God doesn't exist.

More to the point, I could say:

(1) Not all scholars agree with DK's claims and methodology.(2) Hence, we have no reason to believe DK's claims or methodology.

When we examine the life of Jesus, suddenly DK demands universal scholarly assent, or a claim is unbelievable. But DK would never apply this demand in any other situation.

I guess the point we should take away from this is: A man can reject anything, so long as he's willing to throw logic and consistency out the window.

Bottom line: Many scholars (even many Christian scholars) are far more skeptical of the NT documents than I am. I believe they're wrong in their level of skepticism. And DK demands that I accept their conclusions. Total nonsense. I'm under no obligation, moral or intellectual, to believe that other people have the appropriate level of skepticism. If I have to accept DK's required level of skepticism, for instance, I would have to reject virtually all knowledge of anything! Why would I want to commit intellectual suicide like this? Simply to avoid the resurrection? Ha!

I am nobody to ever try to be like, if anything you should be like the real Mustapha the real Mahmud the true shahid and the only Munj Jesus Christ who God the father exalted, unlike His inferior imitators who had to employ carnal worldly means to make a name for themselves and used religion for their own personal agenda's.

@Kim: You know very well that you are being dishonest. I honestly think you do know better from the tactics you are using that you are LYING. It says in the bible that lairs will have no part of heaven. (Rev 21:8).

You still have failed to apologize for your outright lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

For example:

1.)your misrepresentation of Solomon's wives as being permission in the bible Solomon is JUDGED for it.

2.)Your false use of "calm down" to try paint yourself as a victim when the other person was calm, and in fact used as a tactic to avoid answering the question.

3.)Falsely Heiling Hitler to insinuate the people here are hitler, and then when people call you on this tactic to call everyone bigoted haters. http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6590312557191237519&postID=7074791235152549770

5.)Various logical inconsistancies and fallacies (Search "Kim" on this blog)

This is just a small sample. If you were telling the truth, then why do you need to use such dishonest tactics? If you are being honest, wouldn't you be able to reject logical inconsistances from your fellow Muslims and seek true logical refutations?

I had thought it was only acceptable to lie to non-muslims in cases of an obvious threat to ones life, so isn't what you are doing un-islamic?

I don't think DCT is flawed. If God commanded an entire village destroyed and burnt to the ground, then he must have had a good reason. He is the one who made them and gave them their lives in the first place, so he has the right to ask for them back. He is further the greatest mind with the deepest understanding of not just the hearts of the people being killed, but what is justice for them. And if God is the greatest mind, then I am not.

Not to say that I'm not really bothered and shocked to read that every living thing, man and woman, young and old, was put to the sword. I am very bothered. But I see no problem with DCT.

It is precisely because I find DCT such a great explanation that I doubt if criticizing the validity of Islam based on the barbaric violence commanded by Allah is a sensible thing to do.

The reason that human beings feel empathy and hate death and hate violence and hate cruelty and malice and that we love kindness is precisely because we are made in the image of God. God does not delight in the death of the wicked. That is why he offered his own Son to die to save wicked and evil men. God wants the wicked made right and restored, and barring that he will repay wickedness with what it is due.

My point really was that some of the recent posts here seem to be dismissing DCT as a reasonable explanation. If we can't allow DCT, then we have a problem.

John - Yes we fully agree to criticize Islam for DCT is the same as to Christianity complete double standards..

But I've already shown some of the flaws in the contemporary Christian DCT rooted in God's loving moral nature are actually not real solutions at all.

But you probably never had a problem with the "traditional model of command theory" if I'm right. God commands it, that settles it. In your position God can command ANYTHING no matter how absurd and you can attribute it to his mysterious loving nature foreseeing things that we can't.

However that means your DCT is non-falsifiable, meaning God literally CAN do anything, and you will accept it, no action that God could take that you cannot actually say "might be part of his loving plan".

I quoted the entire 10th chapter of Joshua, and I actually read much more of it than that. I'll quote the relevant portion:

<<12 On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” 13 So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on[b] its enemies,as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day. 14 There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!>>

The instance of the sun stopping in the sky is described as the sun stopping, in the middle of the sky, and delaying to go down. This is cited as evidence that God had listened to Joshua's prayer that the sun would stop, marking a miraculous intervention in the battle, proving God's election of Israel.

Which I have no problem with. I have no problem with miracles, and no problem with any book, ancient or modern, describing the sun as moving in the way apparent from the surface of the earth. If this really means that God stopped the earth from spinning and stopped everything on the earth from flinging off in to space, then glory to God. If this is just figurative and really a psychological thing happened despite the rather clear wording to the contrary, then fine, it doesn't mean what it said it means and what everyone reading it for thousands of years thought it meant, glory to God. I'm fine with that explanation, too.

I am not trying to deny the Bible. I am trying to do the opposite of deny the Bible, which is call to question certain denials of the Quran which are commonly used by our atheist friends against the Bible.

Whatever the explanation of this passage, let us not undercut our own explanation of it by criticizing similar passages in another book. That is what I am trying to say.

I hope everyone feels the same way as I do about learning and listening to others before judging yet.

Here's what I feel about Islam, since many friends I've got are muslims and pretty much the friendly ladies close to me are also muslimah. I've tried to defend Islam that is not even my religion, but I found it rather opposite than what I was taught(bible is hard to defend, but Quran is impossible)

and infact I've lower my own standard of morality when discussing scriptural passages both Quran and Bible, i.e.:

- Bible of the OT full of killing entire city and often no survivor (as JL pointed). But the kill-command is TIME SPESIFIC, therefore in contrast with Jesus' words, there's always a future for Christianity in this earth (eventho, some believe their citizenship is kingdom of heaven).

- Quran and Hadith maybe a "bit" less bloody, but the rapes, the nature of violence regarding non-muslims, are BINDING FOREVER as long as a muslim walks upon earth. Howbout if all earthlings turned to Islam? They gonna find new victims to slay even when their Quran is spesific on who that task must be executed. Some "insane in the brain" Christians may find new victims to ridicule but specifics like to love and pray holds on (as in the NT).

Another point I'd like to make, that even when Quran is advertise of "contradiction free" yet the reality is not fulfilling,...also the bible face new problems of newly discovered scriptures (book of enoch, the adam and eve, Thomas on early Jesus teenage stuff) that authenticity are still being proven. But then again, the scriptural sets in bible was never advertise as direct words from God to man, but rather through the apostle and inspired writers.

So as a major guideline, I would see which would make sense defending a scripture which expose breast feeding polemic, cross-dressing inspiration, etc etc compared to violence of the OT scripts.

It's actually very frustrating addressing your posts because a lot of it is just straw-persons, anyone can read what I actually stated and then what you extrapolated from what I said are two entirely different things. It takes a lot longer to correct blunders than make them (as you have), and then be rude and attack me personally while doing that, so I'm happy to make this the last time.

Lets begin firstly, your false equivocation to the defenders of the resurrection hypothesis providing what they think is the "best explanation" in historical methodology and comparing that to a scientific theory.

If I was to use your banter "hah! absurd! haha , I can't believe I'm responding to this nonsense! RIDICULOUS!"

In science all of the NATURAL facts, and phenomena already exist, you don't have to assume magic or psychic powers of aliens or invisible fairies to make the theory work. All of "substance" is already verified, a scientific theory is only an explanation of OBSERVED phenomena.

Example evolution theory: mutation and selection observed and verified. The explanation aspect "evolution produced all of biological life by natural selection and other observed processes" taken from observable phenomena, inference, falsifiable and predictable. Completely testable, not invoking anything "out there".

So while a well attested theory in science is based in inference, falsifiability and empiricism.

The resurrection "hypothesis" is not even as far as we know a possible phenomena, as a "resurrection has not been observed", so until we actually know that a resurrection can and do happen, how is it even a legitimate possible explanation? It's diving into the unknown.

How we do know what or whom is behind the resurrection (if indeed there is one) , WE DON'T. This is why the resurrection hypothesis is on historical ground the LESS satisfying explanation of the data, it explains nothing. In historical terms your explanatory scope doesn't fit the historical criterion.

Later you said: "If I'm going to listen to someone tell me about what happened to Moses, I'm going to listen to the one who rose from the dead."

Then you say I fail to understand "epistemology" which is hillarious considering the statement you just made.

"Hey by the way guys, I was killed and rose from the dead, oh and yeah every book in the old testament is literally true because I was born of a virgin"

Great reasoning. Great epistemology =D

Unfortunately a complete non-sequitor David. Not only that but in your fideism you totally failed to show the "premises" in between that logically reach that conclussion.

We both know why because a man being raised from the dead, means absolutely nothing about whether he was a sinner, whether his message was real, the two can be completely independent.

You also need to show that "ressurecting Jesus" means God was "approving his message", maybe God was just not approving of his death carried out by the romans. And of course we don't know it was "God" at all, or any of the attributes of God, even if it was God.

David you also said: I had to bring in an omnipotent deceiver in order to get round the evidence.

Read more carefully David.

You are the one bringing in unnecessary assumptions to explain "the evidence", you are the one who assumed an omnipotent being in the first place to explain the evidence. So all I'm doing is saying "well that's not necessary" , we could just say "I don't know" or "you have not looked at all the possible answers from contemporary science yet", what I'm saying is if we do need to bring an omnipotent being into the picture, then we have NO IDEA, what this being is and we cannot make assumptions about it's truthfulness or it's intelligence or dishonesty etc.

You said: "If God raised Jesus from the dead, it would obviously be for some important reason, given it's such a rare occurrence."

The being may have just been "walking" pass our galaxy and decided to random arbitrarily intervene with one human event regardless of honesty or truth.

This is the problem with the "supernatural hypothesis" it introduces ANYTHING into the playing field. It's the reason these explanations are constantly rejected in scientific and historical circles.

Further more I am not the one AFFIRMING a God, or a deceiver, YOU ARE. So this isn't a question about my epistemology, this is "How do we work with what DAVID is coming up with, since nothing he comes up with is substantiated or affirmed by historian or scientists then we can ALSO add unnecessary assumptions like "deception". The way you handle the problem solves nothing. I am introducing the same absurdities that you are "more unnecessary beings/properties".

The last post you made was so off the ball, a complete misrepresentation of anything I said or was thinking I'm not even going to address it.

David as I said earlier, ultimately in your view, the evidence of Christianity out weighs the difficulties, John has rightfully disagreed. Evil even if powerful and real, is still evil.

DK said: “I probably understand John the most out of anyone reading here, as I finally caved into John's objections and refused to acknowledge double standards and inconsistency any longer three long years ago.”

DK, since you pride yourself on consistency and for having an aversion to double standards, and since you also define morality as “avoiding pain, seeking pleasure,” I am sure you will applaud the following post since it gives me great pleasure to expose some of your many inconsistencies as an atheist.

Throughout your posts you assume that there is something wrong with being inconsistent – at the very least this can be seen in the above comment of yours where you pat yourself on the back because in your self-assessment you are a consistent fellow (go figure) – but there are many people in the world who derive great pleasure from being inconsistent. After all, don’t you think Christians derive pleasure from believing in the Lord Jesus even though from your perspective believing in Him requires one to be inconsistent?

If seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is the standard of morality, what should we think of somebody who gets pleasure telling people to do things that cause them pain? Isn’t this what you are doing when you call people away from Christ? Perhaps you will say that you aren’t doing anything wrong here by your standards because all you mean is that what is moral is for each person to seek their own pleasure and not that of others, in which case it is not wrong for you to tell others to do what is not pleasurable to them provided it is pleasurable to you to do so. If that is the case, consider the following:

Immediately before defining morality as “avoiding pain, seeking pleasure,” you told John to do something that is obviously uncomfortable for him, i.e. you told him to be consistent in his reasoning and become an atheist. Here is what you said:

“John don't be afraid to join us more honest seekers. This obviously isn't a path you are comfortable with.”

But of course by your stipulated standard of morality, what you just did here was counsel John to be “immoral”: you just told John to avoid what brings him pleasure and to pursue what is painful to him. Since it would be inconsistent of you to say this to John if it didn’t promote your own pleasure or if it caused you pain, then we can only assume, consistent fellow that you are, that your counsel to John to be inconsistent with his own “hardwired” nature and seek what is uncomfortable to him is something that was pleasurable for you to do. If it was not, then you are being inconsistent with your own standard of morality. If it was, then it is consistent with your morality for people to be inconsistent. So either way, in your remarkable consistency as an atheist, inconsistency, to quote Will Smith, is the new hotness. “You have unseated Zeus, and Whirl is king.”

Pursuing the issue of consistency and logical standards further but from another angle, how in the world is it consistent for you, DK, as an atheist, to believe in logical standards or the need for rational consistency given your pre-commitment to naturalism and empiricism?

Notice, in your posts you have scoffed at supernatural, non-empirical explanations, saying they are “impossible” and “unknowable” (you also let your slip show and revealed something of the faith-based nature of your atheism: “However no historian/scholar says better explanations may not appear in the future”). Given this, what is your naturalistic and empirical account for the laws of logic that you are supposedly being consistent with when you reject Christianity? Are the laws of logic natural entities? Do they grow on trees? Are they for sale on ebay? Can we put them in a petrie dish and perform experiments on them? Do they revolve around the sun? Is there a magic goose somewhere that lays logic eggs? If they are not realities of that sort, then on your own assumptions they are “impossible” and “unknowable”.

Let’s get a little more concrete. On what basis do you as an atheist believe in modus ponens (If P, then Q; P; therefore, Q)? That you do believe in this law of logic is apparent from the following statement of yours:

“John I know you are scared of secularists and atheists, and it's obvious why. You have pointed out the very reasons yourself, that if Islam cannot be true for these reasons, then Christianity cannot be true for the same reasons. At least a FUNDAMENTALIST view of Christianity that declares the Bible is inerrant, infallible, inspired, that God is the source of all good , the bible is scientifically accurate etc, we both know this CANNOT be true.”

Filling in the ellipsis, here is what you are arguing:

> If Islam cannot be true for these reasons (P), then Christianity cannot be true for the same reasons (Q)

> Islam is not true for these reasons (P),

> Therefore, Christianity cannot be true for these reasons (Q)

In other words…modus ponens. So on what basis do you as an atheist believe in modus ponens? Is there some atheistic justification that does not beg the question and engage in circular reasoning? Can you give us an answer that is consistent with your atheistic pre-commitments and presuppositions? If you don’t mind, I like my answers sunny side up, not scrambled.

The very fact that you clamor for logical consistency even though you cannot account for logic in the first place – indeed, not only can you not account for it, but your worldview positively rules it out as impossible – shows that, all self-flattering claims of being consistent aside, you do not know the world or yourself as well as you think. But we already knew that. This is our Father’s world, not yours. And you are subject to Him, not He to you. You live in the world He made and do so as His image bearer, not in the world you think you live in and as the kind of being you think you are. You are like the person who argues against the existence of air all the while breathing air as a precondition to argue against it. You reject God but still demand consistency, breathing God’s air (logic, morality, etc.) while you do so. Or, as C. S. Lewis put it, “In a sort of ghastly simplicity [you] remove the organ and demand the function….[You] castrate and bid the gelding [to] be fruitful.”

Notice what philosophers refer to as a rational-irrational dialectic at work in DK's approach, vitiating any claim of consistency on his part.

When arguing against Christianity, he says:

"...In your position God can command ANYTHING no matter how absurd and you can attribute it to his mysterious loving nature foreseeing things that we can't.

However that means your DCT is non-falsifiable, meaning God literally CAN do anything, and you will accept it, no action that God could take that you cannot actually say "might be part of his loving plan"

When arguing for his viewpoint, he says:

"...the resurrection hypothesisfails, since it's only said to be by it's advocates the "BEST EXPLANATION of the facts". Meaning all the other explanations are inadequate therefore magic is the best answer. However no historian/scholar says better explanations may not appear in the future."

And

"You are the one bringing in unnecessary assumptions to explain "the evidence", you are the one who assumed an omnipotent being in the first place to explain the evidence. So all I'm doing is saying "well that's not necessary" , we could just say "I don't know" or "you have not looked at all the possible answers from contemporary science yet", what I'm saying is if we do need to bring an omnipotent being into the picture, then we have NO IDEA, what this being is and we cannot make assumptions about it's truthfulness or it's intelligence or dishonesty etc."

In other words, nothing can be said to dislodge DK's anti-theistic and anti-Christian presuppositions. DK's position falls prey to the very thing he pretends Christians are guilty of, i.e. it is non-falsifiable. There is nothing that can be said to DK that he can't turn around and, in good fideist fashion, reply to with something like: "We don't know the answer now, but we are working on it and believe we will figure it out."

Notice also the inconsistency of DK telling John to do the opposite of what he is "hardwired" to do. According to DK, people have no choice but to seek their own pleasure. But DK told John to deny himself, pick up his - ooops - and follow atheism.

His very call to John presupposes that John is not mechanistically determined to seek his own pleasure. But this CONTRADICTS and is INCONSISTENT with his own stated view of human nature and morality.

DK, you really need to be more consistent and get rid of the vestiges of Christianity that still remain in your thinking. Quit borrowing from our worldview in order to argue for your own. It makes it look like you don't even believe yourself. But I guess that makes at least two of us, because I don't believe you either (except when you borrow from the Christian worldview to sound reasonable).

DK said: "In science all of the NATURAL facts, and phenomena already exist, you don't have to assume magic or psychic powers of aliens or invisible fairies to make the theory work. All of "substance" is already verified, a scientific theory is only an explanation of OBSERVED phenomena.

Example evolution theory: mutation and selection observed and verified. The explanation aspect "evolution produced all of biological life by natural selection and other observed processes" taken from observable phenomena, inference, falsifiable and predictable. Completely testable, not invoking anything "out there".

So while a well attested theory in science is based in inference, falsifiability and empiricism."

Okay, so DK has faith in the validity of induction, the technical term for what scientists do when they extrapolate or make inferences from observed phenomena. But atheistic belief in induction necessarily "invokes...[something] out there", for the validity of the inductive principle that scientists invoke to explain things cannot be proven empirically, i.e. by an appeal to experience. But don't take it from me. Atheist Bertrand Russel said it better than I can:

----quote----

"The inductive principle, however, is equally incapable of being proved by an appeal to experience. Experience might conceivably confirm the inductive principle as regards the cases that have been already examined; but as regards unexamined cases, it is the inductive principle alone that can justify any inference from what has been examined to what has not been examined. All arguments which, on the basis of experience, argue as to the future or the unexperienced parts of the past or present, assume the inductive principle; hence we can never use experience to prove the inductive principle without begging the question. Thus we must either accept the inductive principle on the ground of its intrinsic evidence, or forgo all justification of our expectations about the future. If the principle is unsound, we have no reason to expect the sun to rise to-morrow, to expect bread to be more nourishing than a stone, or to expect that if we throw ourselves off the roof we shall fall. When we see what looks like our best friend approaching us, we shall have no reason to suppose that his body is not inhabited by the mind of our worst enemy or of some total stranger. All our conduct is based upon associations which have worked in the past, and which we therefore regard as likely to work in the future; and this likelihood is dependent for its validity upon the inductive principle.

The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.

Thus all knowledge which, on a basis of experience tells us something about what is not experienced, is based upon a belief which experience can neither confirm nor confute, yet which, at least in its more concrete applications, appears to be as firmly rooted in us as many of the facts of experience. The existence and justification of such beliefs -- for the inductive principle, as we shall see, is not the only example -- raises some of the most difficult and most debated problems of philosophy."

----end quote----

Sorry, DK, but your appeal to science necessarily invokes something "out there", for their is no experience "down here" that justifies what scientists take for granted about the uniformity of nature.

Okay, since I know two witnesses are needed by atheists to confirm a matter, let's hear it from another atheist, David Hume:

" To say [the inference that the future will be like the past] is experimental [i.e., based on experience], is begging the question. For all inferences from experience suppose, as their foundation, that the future will resemble the past, and that similar powers will be conjoined with similar sensible qualities. If there be any suspicion that the course of nature may change, and that the past may be no rule for the future, all experience becomes useless, and can give rise to no inference or conclusion. It is impossible, therefore, that any arguments from experience can prove this resemblance of the past to the future; since all these arguments are founded on the supposition of that resemblance."

DK said: "I wonder why you don't back up the same debunk arguments David has been using? The prepositionalist and evidentialist "inconsistency" no doubt ;-)"

What is the matter, DK? I have demonstrated many of your inconsistencies, and all you can do is impute one to me without arguing for it? tsk. tsk.

I don't see any inconsistency in showing the futility of your underlying assumptions and the inescapable need on your part to borrow from the Christian worldview when you clumsily try to deal with the REAL evidence that IS THERE for the resurrection of Christ. If you see it, then point it out.

I'm glad a secularist and I can agree on something for a change even if it's something like this :)

I make no pretense to having any sort of understanding of DCT at all, let alone the best understanding, but I'm not really sure that God can command anything no matter how absurd. The destruction of Jericho and all the penalties of the Law are issues of judgment and punishment against wickedness. God has every right to judge and punish people, and to set what he finds the proper punishment. God made every single person in Jericho, God knew the secret heart of every single person there, and even if God hadn't ordered them all killed by the sword, they would have died anyway of natural causes, as God has decreed that all human beings are to die at some point.

You grew up believing in a person who told you to love every single person, to never cause harm to another, not even to your enemies, and instead to lay down your life for others. Indeed, that is what Jesus did himself. In a culture centered around a man of this sort of peace, love, kindness, gentleness and respect, yes, we have a very low view of violence, and really your statement seems to imply that killing is the only immoral act.

For one, it is not immoral for God to kill. He gave me my life in the first place, and it is his to reclaim as he wishes. It is not immoral for God to use human agents or angelic agents in accomplishing my death. It is even less immoral for God to use death as a punishment against the wicked.

For two, there are plenty of other immoral things besides killing, and these things God cannot command, and never will command. If I heard a voice commanding me to fornication, I will know that it is demonic. If I hear a voice commanding me to lie or steal or cheat, then I know that it is demonic. A voice commanding me to worship an idol is demonic. All other sorts of things besides I might be led to believe are being commanded by God, but these things are not acceptable and not part of God's will and have nothing to do with his loving nature or his vengeful nature either.

Really all to say, morality is not just about peacefulness and from what I understand divine command theory is specifically about God's commands to human agents to enact divine justice, which involves doing something (killing) that is normally strictly forbidden to humans. I think Anthony here has responded to you plenty though, and I do not wish to overwhelm you in responses, so I will end here.

DK, would it be fair to say that just as atheists like yourself like to suggest that Christians invoke the God of the gaps for everything (which is actually entirely rational since God is by definition omnipresent and the one who sustains the universe and ordains things according to His purpose and for His glory), that I could likewise say that atheists such as yourself like to invoke naturalism of the gaps to the point where you will deny any supernatural explanation of something, even when you have NO alternate naturalistic alternative and assume a natural explanation anyway saying "well there may be another explanation but we just don't know yet" ?

You see, you cannot dismiss the resurrection for a lack of evidence. There is evidence, and if you say that there "may be a better explanation" it seems to me that you are placing faith in our own naturalistic god who hasn't managed to give you an answer yet.

Btw, since you're big on empiricism, do you observe people's hearts the way God does? Do you see history the way God does? Do you see sin the way God sees sin?

I know that these questions may seem absurd to ask on the surface, but the reason I ask them is that your denial of God is based upon an evaluation, a conclusion you have reached about God's character due to your understanding of sin, history, morality, etc. I just wonder if perhaps God might have a better microscope than you do. I'm not saying that the biblical God cannot be defended on the basis of what we see in the text itself, but simply on the grand scale of things, I just would challenge your empirical approach. What leads you to use such an approach, and how reliable is your observation equipment when evaluating God's dealing with sin?

In fact, to critique God and His dealing with sin, would it not somehow be incompatible with the empirical approach since you are employing a naturalistic worldview to evaluate that which is metaphysical?

Hi John Lollard... do you undertand thate this passage, in Joshua's book, does not representt a single problem to the biblical person who understands the biblical constitution, butt the qur'ans text does place a uge problemm to the muslim believer who understands the qur'anic constittution? so: I think that its absoluttely acceptable for a Christian to say: "hei... whatte aboutt the qur'anic afirmation thate the sun orbits the earth?"... we are just pointing an inconsistency, thate does not extist in the Christian one, on the islamic mindset thate denies one off the key islamic defences for the autheticity off the qur'an: the absolutte rightenss off it in scientific matters...

As for the command by God to destroy certain peoples in the Old Covenant, I would remind you that Scripture records some pretty interesting things concerning some of these peoples. There seems to be evidence, based on Numbers 13:33, for example, that the Anakim were a tainted race of giant Nephilim (see Gen 6 for more on this). Other people groups seem to have also been a forbidden transhuman hybrid (as crazy as this sounds).

Furthermore, in regards to "death", we must keep in mind that, according to Scripture, life on this earth is a priveledge granted by God and is not the end all of our existence. One of the major themes of Scripture is that death is a phantom and not truly "death". In reality, every soul (whether they admit it or not) continues existing in another dimension beyond the death of their mortal earth-suit. Just a few random thoughts

I'm afraid that I do not understand that. Please explain to me. The Bible says the sun moves around the earth. We could insist that that's what the Bible says so that's what happens, we could interpret this in light of modern understanding (it's figurative or descriptive or just using the language of that time), or we could say the Bible is wrong.

As to that last one, that is the conclusion that I am being asked to make about the Quran, and that is the conclusion that atheists ask me to make about the Bible.

I personally think the last option is silly. I think it makes sense when speaking to anyone but an astronomer to describe the sun as moving around the earth. That's how we still talk today and we know better.

If the last option is a silly response to geocentrism, then it is a silly response to geocentrism, anywhere, in the Bible or the Quran.

Please explain further why the Holy Spirit of God can move within someone and inspire then to describe a stationary earth, but Allah cannot tell Gibreel to tell Muhammad about a stationary earth? Especially considering how much higher and rational the Christian God is from Allah. I really would like a better explanation.

Hi, sir. I find your issue with "the sun moving" or "the sun stood still" to be misplaced.

First of all, as I read the passage in Joshua, I kept having the impression that the passage was written from the perspective of a human writer.... from the ground looking up... not from the heavens looking down.

So, I find no problem with the passage saying "the sun stood still", cause that is plainly how it would look to any human being, looking from the ground up.Please tell me how would it be if I said to you in a park, instead, "the earth stood still". Would it be a description of the sun or that things on earth are not moving/happening?How about "the stars appeared in the sky"? Did I literally mean the stars appeared out of nothing in the sky? Or that the sky has darkened enough to allow us to see the stars in the sky?

It's an issue of language, not science for the Joshua passage; much like "sun rises" or "sun sets". No astronomer or atheist has a problem with such terms or language.

Second of all, nowhere in the Joshua passage does it speak about the sun moving around the earth, or the earth moving around the sun for that matter.Nothing of such statements or implications with regards to the relationship between the sun and the earth.But merely a description of what happened.

Much like how one would exclaim, "The cat appeared out of nowhere!"Is it a description of the cat's miraculous ability to appear and disappear at will?Or is it just that the person did not realize the cat was there all along and was surprised by the cat's seemingly sudden presence?

-------

If anyone (Christian or not) takes this part of the passage as concrete evidence that the bible teaches the sun revolves around the earth, then he has ALOT to infer on or make assumptions about to proof his case.

But as Dr David explained, no Christian promotes all to believe the bible because it has 'scientific miracles'; e.g. growth of baby in the womb, earth's revolving around the sun, evolution, etc...Nor does the bible ascribed itself with such...

So I agree with Dr David. I see no inconsistency with rejecting Islam for its violence or scientific blunders and yet accepting the bible inspite of such. Reason being, I see your issue as a comparison between apples and oranges.

Quran = promotes violence (killing, subjugating, beheading, etc) and also immoral practices (raping, adultery, paedophile, enslaving, etc)Bible = contains violence and immoral practices, but never promotes such as practices to be replicated for all generations

Quran = Muslims claim to be 100% Allah's words and 100% preserved word for word, and yet contains blunders (scientific, theological, historical, etc)Bible = If it contains some blunders, then it is probably human induced, because that is how the bible was produced, 100% written by men, 100% inspired by God. Not to mentioned, copied and re-copied for many many centuries by more men of different generations and geographies.

Some will argue that to say "100% inspired by God" means that it doesn't allow error... but this is a misunderstanding or misconception of, what I've come to understand as, the biblical meaning of God-inspired/God-breathed.

It is not the same as channeling like how spiritists would go into a trance and write unconsciously or involuntarily with no control over what they wrote or thought as they wrote.Or a sort of possession where God's Spirit literally takes over the person to write the bible.

The different books that constitute the bible were written by men (and maybe women too) who were conscious and thoughtful in their writing (or re-writing) of the relevant accounts.

So, it is not a wonder if there may be some blunders to be found in the bible.But the wonderful truth is, there is no blunder made in the essential doctrines of a Christian; i.e. Jesus Christ's divinity, sacrifice, and resurrection.

Assalamualikum to all of the brothers and sisters in Islam - This stupid website is so curious of throwing mud on the religion Islam. It make me laugh out loud that these stupid once who are a stray. We are Muslims and these puppets shall deceive the accurate punishment from Allah in this world and the here after Insha Allah. May the curse be upon the transgressors. Qur'an and Sunnath shall be the guidance taking Jannath granted.

Hey, you bully, Mujahid! You think you are so tough!!! Don't think that we are afraid of you and your laughable threats.

Islam is a filthy and stupid religion and nobody is throwing mud at it! We are EXPOSING its filthy nature to the world and it is taking effect! Muslims are leaving this stupid religion in droves and more and more non-Muslims are waking up and realizing what a filthy backwards and savage religion Islam is and you, Mujahid are living prove of its filth and savage nature! Thanks for providing evidence for everything that we have been EXPOSING on this site by your comments!

Now! Listen to me carefully you IDIOT! You think that Muslims are now so successful and wealthy and are on your high horse! Don't you worry! Very very soon the oil supplies that the Westerners dug out of ground for you lazy and illiterate people will dry up or an alternative to oil will be discovered and you Muslims will go bankrupt as you were a century a go and will crawl back to your deserts to your camel jockeying and scrapping for food in your tents!

You lazy and useless people have brought nothing but death and destruction to yourself and humanity and you are even too dumb and ignorant to be ashamed of it!

But don't worry! The reality will soon kick in and wake you haughty vainglorious idiots up soon enough! So bully! Bully away! When the oil wells dry up and your mothership Saudi Arabia go back to its normal self of being a barren desert full of tent-dwelling, camel-riding, illiterate and starving people you people will learn your place and Christian west will drop charity food from airplane on your desert to save you from death by starvation!

So instead of coming here and bullying people I advise you to go learn something useful for humanity so that when that day comes you don't starve to death! You IDIOT!

(P.S. Sorry to my Christian friends for this angry rant, but this guy just asked for it!!!)

No Muslim will claim the Qu'ran is a book of science, not even Zakir Naik. What we Muslims argue is that the Qu'ran is a miracle that cannot have been created by a human being, and since it was also the final message sent to humanity it had to outlive it's messenger (Muhammad, peace be upon him). Islam isn't supposed to be scientific. We believe that the human body has a soul, that's not something you can really explain through science.

Islam gives you a miracle you can recite anywhere you want, and that gives you the conviction that you're on the right path. The problem (as I recall mentionioning before) with the "historical evidence" argument that Christianity presents is that it can never be a substitute for tangible proof. Nobody here saw Jesus (peace be upon him) rise from the dead, just as nobody here saw Moses (peace be upon him) part the seas. You simply can't say your Religion is right because of a miracle that happened some 2000 years ago in an isolated place.

Many Christians know this, which is why they often resort to attacking Islam and Muslims to try and cast doubt into their hearts before inviting them to Christianity (much like what the user in this video does).

Sorry this has been a long time coming, but since a few people keep referencing this thread in order to proclaim a supposed victory over me, I'll mention all the errors made by our residential Calvinist.

Also the original reason why I never responded here is simply that Anthony only made one post or paragraph relating to the Resurrection. And also never seemed to address the fundamental topic of Divine Command Theory being accepted by both religions and therefore neither can condemn one another based on that criterion of being commanded to fight or commit violence.

Rather than addressing the topic of Theological Inconsistency Anthony choose to address to the topic of "my personal inconsistency and the world view I have", which in short was a red herring.

None the less, time to address the errors:

Anthony said: "there are many people in the world who derive great pleasure from being inconsistent. After all, don’t you think Christians derive pleasure from believing in the Lord Jesus even though from your perspective believing in Him requires one to be inconsistent?"

I don't advocate deriving pleasure at the cost of being inconsistent, if that was the case I for example would advocate sincere Muslims stay in Islam, but I'm highly for education, and want people to know falsehood and know the truth about Islam.

You also misconstrued a few sentences about morality I made and transformed a few thoughts into my entire world view, which isn't the case. What I omitted in my few words of description was fundamental to your crtique. Suffering exists, and sure, the less suffering the better.

Therefore it is unnessacery suffering that I am against. In my world view, suffering can be nessacery for a greater good or happiness. Unnecessary useless suffering however has no merit whatsoever.

You also said I was being inconsistent for telling John to do something uncomfortable/painful for him. But clearly if you reread my quote:

“John don't be afraid to join us more honest seekers. This obviously isn't a path you are comfortable with.”

You can see I understand that John is uncomfortable in his current state, and therefore recommending a path that will ultimately cause him more comfort. But even if he was discontent, he would become more content eventually by knowing the truth.

Anthony said: "How in the world is it consistent for you, DK, as an atheist, to believe in logical standards or the need for rational consistency given your pre-commitment to naturalism and empiricism?"

As you are begging the question, I can't answer this. As it is your assumption that naturalism and empiricism are inconsistent with logical standards and rational consistency, but why do you believe that? What argument did you make? How have you shown this? That isn't clear at all.

You also say: "The very fact that you clamor for logical consistency even though you cannot account for logic in the first place – indeed, not only can you not account for it, but your worldview positively rules it out as impossible – "

Well lets here an argument for that one. If you don’t mind, I like my arguments given, not taken.

You next say: "Given this, what is your naturalistic and empirical account for the laws of logic that you are supposedly being consistent with when you reject Christianity?"

And later you say: "So on what basis do you as an atheist believe in modus ponens?"

Here you ask me to "account", for laws of logic, which I assume means you are asking me: why these laws exist at all, and why are they the way they are? how do I explain these laws en light of my world view, what is the basis I accept this?

Firstly I think we have a misleading term with the word "Laws". Laws sometimes can imply a Law-giver or legislator. However a better term might be: intrinsic boundary or constant.

But simply put: Laws really are an innate part of what is, how reality or some aspect or reality operates in it's essence.

However, you fail to mention every world view has axiomatic presuppositions.

For example, if I ask you: why does God exist? why does anything exist? why does something exist rather than nothing? why does God exist rather than nothing exist?

No one can provide any answers. We simply take the axioms:

1) something exists 2) something different from me exists 3) existence does not change, it doesn't simply stop existing and then start existing, it always exists, there is consistency

And construct a world view using these Axioms (and others that I have left out).

So no, asking me to justify/account for "laws of logic" is as silly as asking me to justify existence. Existence, exists, that is an axiom. The way in which existence exists, is known as a Law. Neither can be justified or given a "basis" for.

To further demonstrate the case, I will direct the question back one step further. Instead of asking why does the universe have laws of logic and how?

I can simply ask: why does God have laws of logic and how do they work? Account for God having laws that rule his absolute nature. Why does God have laws that rule his nature at all? Why isn't God random and arbitrary?

You then ask: "Are the laws of logic natural entities? Do they grow on trees? Are they for sale on ebay? Can we put them in a petrie dish and perform experiments on them? Do they revolve around the sun? Is there a magic goose somewhere that lays logic eggs? If they are not realities of that sort, then on your own assumptions they are “impossible” and “unknowable”."

You are correct in assuming I cannot describe the exact nature of these Laws of Logic, just like I can't fully describe Dark Matter or Dark Energy. However, the effects of these laws are observable and can be conceptualized.

Dark Energy and Matter we found exist using measuring tools and mathematical assumptions, and the Laws of Logic themselves likewise can be conceptualized, observed in nature, and even tested, indicating they exist (even without assuming them).

Anthony, you later appeal to the induction principle and uniformity of nature which I gladly admit this is part of an axiomatic knowledge in my world view. We assume it. We beg the question. We assert existence, and we assert the way which existence operates is an inherent part of existence. An axiomatic assumption mind you that has never been falsified by observation or experience, probably due to the fact that it is quite clearly a self evident, universal truth.

Have we found any phenomena in reality that would contradict the inference that all dead men stay dead? If Anthony you don't accept along with me the axiomatic knowledge of induction, then I suggest you provide a counter-example, where the known uniformity of nature does not occur, give us an exception.

Once you have provided an exception, please explain how induction then is "accounted" for in your world view? when in your world view induction actually doesn't exist, as there are multiple phenomenon demonstrating there is no uniformity of nature!

Anthony I ultimately agree with you that materialism beggs the question and makes some unjustified assumptive propositions, every world view does including your own calvinist pressupositionalism. However axioms like induction need no justification, that is why induction is axiomatic in nature. Ultimately we can raise a question about who has better, or more coherent assumptions. Which pressupositions best explain the world we live in? I'd like to hear how "God did it" is a better explanation than the known laws of physics, laws of logic operate the essential nature of the universe. Why do you need to add another layer and create another problem?

What this proves is that God is not an axiom, but rather a proposed "solution" to a problem that can better be explained by natural phenomena. Also why do you also assume along with the atheist, the induction of the universe, the uniformity of nature, when your world view cannot account for it. God could still exist if the world is up or down, whether it was rational or irrational, uniform or not, God can still exist, and as you seem to admit there is no uniformity of nature, as frequently miracles occur, then your world view cannot account for an axiomatic phenomena!

Mr Rodgers you next said: "In other words, nothing can be said to dislodge DK's anti-theistic and anti-Christian presuppositions. DK's position falls prey to the very thing he pretends Christians are guilty of, i.e. it is non-falsifiable."

Regarding me pointing out that God could do something so detestable, but Christians can always say "it's for the greater good" and therefore it's unfalsifiable, God can do anything and still be considered perfect and moral.

You then try to claim I'm in consistent, since I believe in a naturalistic sequence of events of the resurrection despite any information given to me, I even can "wait" for the naturalistic explanation, even if no contemporary model is good enough, proving that Dk is faith based and his belief in a natural explanation is unfalsifiable.

The problem here is I never said: "There would be no hypothesis that one could provide me that would not make me think about accepting a supernatural model". You also failed to note that this isn't my personal view that there is no superior naturalistic explanation of the resurrection hypothesis, that I am making a claim about historians:

"However no historian/scholar says better explanations may not appear in the future."

However which historians am I referencing? Certainly not the majority who don't confirm the best explanation as the God hypothesis at all. I'm referring to those historians who think the God hypothesis is the best hypothesis.If they are truly "historians", then they need to accept the current best model, but later accept the best models at that time.

It's also worth mentioning that the historical method is not like dogma, it is always open to falsification and hence you are comparing apples and oranges. When I made comments about theology, I've shown those beliefs as unfalsifiable. History ontologically doesn't work this way, history is confirmed by the historical method, and always susceptible to change, meaning you made a categorical error. History can never be dogmatic and unfalsifiable, while Theology can (since it's not based on empiricism) but faith.

As this website is not exclusively devoted to Atheist/Theist quarrels I have re pasted the core of this conversation over here if anyone wants to continue in the comment section, no one will be censored:

Due to an error made along the path of production, the second video begins at the 3:19 mark.

More videos may follow, but I do have better things to do than pretend with DK that he has anything going for himself as an atheist. If I were to direct my attention in the direction of atheism, it is not likely I would be seeking him out as the man for the job.

I had no clue that Mr Rodgers had responded, and looks like I wasn't meant to know, wonder why that is?

First, I'll address all the aggressive, insulting comments:

"from what others told him was an abysmal performance"

No one actually used that term, and all of the people who were convinced you "dealt to me" were of the Christian faith, one being your bro Shamoun. Pressupositionalist Christians supporting themselves would be rather expected don't you think? Hey that would be a much an expected induction like the sun rising tomorrow :-)

But the truth is you barely actually addressed my performance, rather than addressing the inconsistency in your faith since it's indefensible you had to attack atheism. And that is the whole basis of pressupositionalism.

"but I do have better things to do than pretend with DK that he has anything going for himself as an atheist."

Then please don't devote any more time to me, and my "response" that you needed to make three videos to address. Your glory is on high, master apologist.

"If I were to direct my attention in the direction of atheism, it is not likely I would be seeking him out as the man for the job."

If I am so unimportant, and you have to be addressing Quentin Smith or Michael Martin, or George Smith, etc please don't let my lowly self hold you back sir.

In fact, I won't be making any more comments in this thread regarding this subject. And I will even paste your video responses on my blog but probably won't be addressing them, maybe one or two things.

You might want to celebrate that as another victory, that is if you are after cheap victories and personal insults against atheists who are not worth your time. In fact I'll make sure not to bother you again, your majesty.

DK said: "No one actually used that term, and all of the people who were convinced you "dealt to me" were of the Christian faith, one being your bro Shamoun. Pressupositionalist Christians supporting themselves would be rather expected don't you think? Hey that would be a much an expected induction like the sun rising tomorrow :-)"

Or as much as touting a video of Edward Tabash showing that someone agrees with your pathetic answer on induction.

BTW, the clip that you found of old Eddie is actually from a debate with the person who co-founded the college I went to. Let me just say, as Eddie himself said afterwards, that was one of the worst experiences of his life.

DK said: "If I am so unimportant, and you have to be addressing Quentin Smith or Michael Martin, or George Smith, etc please don't let my lowly self hold you back sir."

You obviously didn't get what I said. I have no interest in atheism at all. What I said was, if I were to be interested in directing my efforts towards atheism, it would be to people who know what they are talking about. Sorry to say, that is not you.

All the people you mentioned have been thoroughly responded to. Bahnsen, the co-founder of the school I mentioned earlier, debated George Smith. Your buddy Michael Martin originally agreed to debate him but then tucked tail when Bahnsen insisted that the debate had to be recorded. This came about because of how badly a colleague of Martin's, Dr. Gordon Stein, performed in a debate against Bahnsen back in 1985. John Frame and Michael Butler, the former of whom was a teacher of Bahnsen's and the latter of whom was Bahnsen's protege (and a professor at the school Bahnsen founded) and many others have replied to Martin.

DK said: "You might want to celebrate that as another victory, that is if you are after cheap victories and personal insults against atheists who are not worth your time. In fact I'll make sure not to bother you again, your majesty."

I didn't celebrate the first time. I let it go. You decided to lash out at me two months later because other people struck a blow to your pride by saying you lost. Blame yourself for not being a bigger person.

DK claims elsewhere that Christians are guilty of the same thing I accused him of, i.e. the attempt to derive prescriptions about what we ought to do from descriptions about what happens in the natural world. Or, to put it more simply, trying to derive ought from is, duties from nature, etc. He makes this claim because he thinks it is no different than what Christians do when they claim to derive morality from the nature of God.

But DK is obviously confused about what philosophers call the naturalistic fallacy, the attempt to derive ethical norms from the natural world.

The problem, in short, is trying to get a non-natural reality like ethical norms and absolutes from something that is itself not normative or absolute. This is obviously not what Christians are doing when they say moral norms are grounded in an absolute personal being (and that we know them by means of God's revealed will, i.e. His commands).

To put it another way, DK can't get water from a rock. But that doesn't mean that a group of slaves wandering around the desert after being redeemed from bondage can't.

Dk said somewhere: "Well Mr "Rogers" you misunderstand a few things. I am merely using a NT term like "carnal" simply to speak in Christian language, not because I am dependent on the word. Even Paul says "to a Jew I become like Jew etc" and yes I'm even using that example to speak to you in your own language."

No need to put scare quotes around my name, that is exactly how you spell it. Now you just need to start putting a period after MR and you will have this part down.

Okay, since you aren't dependent on the word but were simply speaking in a way that I would understand, now teach that to us in your language. Translate that into atheistic terms for us. Since you have said that "human nature is normative, it has a set of boundaries and characteristics," tell me how anything a human being does, indeed, tell me how anything this member of the human species does, can be judged to be wrong, i.e. contrary to human nature. It is perfectly within the boundaries and characteristics of human nature to respond to people in a "carnal" way, so on what basis do you as an atheist condemn replies of this sort?

It is painfully obvious that you are not just borrowing a word from the Christian worldview but you are presupposing the Christian worldview in order to make sense out of what you are doing when you try to make moral judgments. Your condemnation of aggressive replies to your blasphemous talk about the God who made you simply doesn't comport with your underlying assumptions.

DK said: "What is absolute? Unchanging, binding and unalterable. Well it's possible to have an evil God that has all of those essential attributes. Being "absolute" does not prove the nature of that being is "moral" or "all good". In fact I've already demonstrated that in pointing out God's love is not our love. God's love allows for internationally condemned evils,i.e.. genocide."

You are confused. If God is absolute, which is just to say if God is GOD, then he is the standard. He isn't qualified or conditioned by anyone or anything else external to him, not even an international court or international law. To call God evil is to assume a standard above Him by which He can be judged, which is to do nothing more than assume He is not absolute in order to argue that He is not absolute.

By the way, international law does not in fact condemn God for being God and judging rebels as you suggested; rather, it condemns human beings for playing God, something we saw atheistic human beings do a lot of last century when they slaughtered millions "for the greater good," showing us thereby that when a subset of human beings condemn other human beings for doing what the boundaries and characteristics of their nature make possible, they are not assuming your brand of atheism.

DK said: "Regarding Tabash doing poorly, I wholly agree. That's why I only quoted the part I agreed with. As for all the banter about who was chickening out on debates etc, and who has responded to who, fascinating, but really who cares? That's really just "who beat who talk", no substance. If you want a wrestling match then go to a ring."

First, you missed the reason why I brought this up. You said it was altogether insignificant and unsurprising that fellow Christians were saying you got trounced in our discussion. It is to be expected, as you said, that Christians would agree with me. Likewise, I was pointing out that this shows just how singularly unimpressive it is that you found an atheist who agrees with something you said about induction.

Second, the clip of Tabash that you are celebrating was one of the worst parts of his admittedly poor performance. Once you have been sufficiently educated on morality we will get to that, but not before discussing logic.

Third, that an atheist of the calibre of Martin would back out of a debate shows something of his (lack of) confidence in the public defensibility of atheism, so it says more than what you would like. Think of a contemporary example: it wouldn't say much if you refused to debate William Lane Craig; it does say a lot, however, that Dawkins won't do so.

DK said: "The "banter" about being beaten, and running etc is just that banter. I even provided a link to this webpage so that we could continue this conversation without interfering with the website to much, so don't pretend I am running or backing out."

At this point I don't think you have enough sense to back out. But it wasn't my original contention that you chickened out. You flatlined and I said nothing more about it. Then you decided that you needed to redeem yourself because others let you know just how poorly you did (and are still doing) defending atheism.

Some friendly advice: I wouldn't complain about the banter too much. It might start to look like you don't really believe yourself when you say that human nature is normative and then turn around and condemn the sorts of things that often characterize members of our own unique species.

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!